The meaning of Zelensky’s decision to “continue to defend” Bakhmut is explained

“May be an information move”

On Monday, March 6, a regular meeting of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the country was held in Ukraine. The main topic of discussion was the situation in the Bakhmut direction. Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valery Zaluzhny, contrary to the stated disagreements, spoke out “in favor of continuing the defense operation and further strengthening positions in Bakhmut.” What could be behind this decision?

Recently, all the media, including the world media, have been saturated with the theme of the battle for Artemovsk (Bakhmut). Everyone admitted and noticed that the struggle was hard and success was not on the side of Ukraine. Officials in Kyiv have described their control of Bakhmut as increasingly tenuous in recent days. It was assumed that just about, and would have to retreat. But, if you believe the signals coming from the capital of Nezalezhnaya, it turned out that, like, no.

It looks suspicious and strange against the background of statements, for example, by US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who said that Artemivsk “does not have great strategic value for the Armed Forces of Ukraine within the framework of the conflict.” He also added that the capture of the city by Russian forces “will not be a turning point in the course of hostilities.”

But as The Washington Post notes, it now matters to Ukraine, which is likely “preparing for a spring offensive” while the West is “hurrying to deliver weapons and ammunition.”

“Hurry” is, of course, a strong word, given the supply problems with the UK-led Ukraine Aid Fund. But, remembering that Kyiv’s Western patrons have been sending more weapons to Nezalezhnaya over the past year, Zelensky’s “responsibility” to donors is clear.

Let us also recall that US President Joe Biden repeats like a mantra from speech to speech that he will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” promising to continue supplying weapons.

The UK Ministry of Defense said over the weekend that Ukraine’s position in Bakhmut was “under increasing pressure” and cited an additional Russian offensive on the northern outskirts of the city. That is, London no longer believes in Kyiv? Then why such a decision? What is its meaning?

Military expert Boris Rozhin, in his telegram channel Colonelcassad, explains the actions of Zelensky and the company as follows: “On the one hand, this could be an information move to cover the withdrawal of forces from Artemovsk, since similar statements about the readiness to defend the city to the end were made the day before retreats from Lisichansk and Soledar, with subsequent attempts to give out battles near the city and the ongoing cleansing of cities by our troops – “a continuation of the heroic resistance” so as not to announce the surrender of the city “of no operational and strategic importance.”

On the other hand, part of the forces in Artemovsk can be abandoned (in fact, in a cauldron) in order to exchange cannon fodder for a while, while our remnants of resistance in the city will be crushed. They are already accustomed to the fact that their own people will be accused of a butcher’s approach to their own soldiers (see Mariupol or Soledar).